模糊的界限:对“内幕”研究的反思

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Laura Yvonne Bulk, B. Collins
{"title":"模糊的界限:对“内幕”研究的反思","authors":"Laura Yvonne Bulk, B. Collins","doi":"10.1177/10778004231188048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Insider research poses a range of benefits and challenges for researchers and the communities being researched. It is commonly advocated for disability research but there is limited work exploring disabled researchers’ experiences. Influenced by autoethnography and through a process of asynchronous structured conversations, we reflected on our experiences as two blind researchers. Through our collective reflective process and analysis, we created three main themes: insider research is complex and subjective, there is judgment about the “right” thing to do, and insider research requires “different” work. We argue that insiderness is more than sharing characteristics: it is a situated, fluctuating, and “felt” experience. The complexities, judgments, and emotional labor associated with insider research can challenge researchers in potentially very personal and unexpected ways. We propose that further investigation is required about how researchers can best prepare for, engage ethically throughout, and be supported through the insider research process.","PeriodicalId":48395,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blurry Lines: Reflections on “Insider” Research\",\"authors\":\"Laura Yvonne Bulk, B. Collins\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10778004231188048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Insider research poses a range of benefits and challenges for researchers and the communities being researched. It is commonly advocated for disability research but there is limited work exploring disabled researchers’ experiences. Influenced by autoethnography and through a process of asynchronous structured conversations, we reflected on our experiences as two blind researchers. Through our collective reflective process and analysis, we created three main themes: insider research is complex and subjective, there is judgment about the “right” thing to do, and insider research requires “different” work. We argue that insiderness is more than sharing characteristics: it is a situated, fluctuating, and “felt” experience. The complexities, judgments, and emotional labor associated with insider research can challenge researchers in potentially very personal and unexpected ways. We propose that further investigation is required about how researchers can best prepare for, engage ethically throughout, and be supported through the insider research process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231188048\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231188048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

内部研究给研究人员和被研究的社区带来了一系列好处和挑战。它通常被提倡用于残疾研究,但探索残疾研究人员经验的工作有限。受民族志的影响,通过异步结构化对话的过程,我们反思了我们作为两个盲人研究者的经历。通过我们的集体反思过程和分析,我们创造了三个主题:内部人研究是复杂和主观的,对做“正确”的事情有判断,内部人研究需要“不同”的工作。我们认为,内在不仅仅是共享特征:它是一种情境、波动和“感觉”的体验。与内部研究相关的复杂性、判断和情感劳动可能会以潜在的非常个人化和意想不到的方式挑战研究人员。我们建议,需要进一步调查研究人员如何最好地做好准备,在整个过程中进行道德参与,并通过内部研究过程获得支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Blurry Lines: Reflections on “Insider” Research
Insider research poses a range of benefits and challenges for researchers and the communities being researched. It is commonly advocated for disability research but there is limited work exploring disabled researchers’ experiences. Influenced by autoethnography and through a process of asynchronous structured conversations, we reflected on our experiences as two blind researchers. Through our collective reflective process and analysis, we created three main themes: insider research is complex and subjective, there is judgment about the “right” thing to do, and insider research requires “different” work. We argue that insiderness is more than sharing characteristics: it is a situated, fluctuating, and “felt” experience. The complexities, judgments, and emotional labor associated with insider research can challenge researchers in potentially very personal and unexpected ways. We propose that further investigation is required about how researchers can best prepare for, engage ethically throughout, and be supported through the insider research process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Qualitative Inquiry
Qualitative Inquiry SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
143
期刊介绍: Qualitative Inquiry provides an interdisciplinary forum for qualitative methodology and related issues in the human sciences. With Qualitative Inquiry you have access to lively dialogues, current research and the latest developments in qualitative methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信